INTRODUCTION: Transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) guided prostate needle biopsy has been performed to diagnose and stage prostate cancer for many years. There are many different bowel preparation protocols to diminish the infectious complications, but there is no standardized consensus among urologists. Therefore, we aimed to assess two different bowel preparation methods on the rate of infectious complications in patients who underwent TRUS-guided prostate biopsy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 387 cases of TRUS-guided prostate biopsy were included in this retrospective study. All patients received antibiotic prophylaxis with ciprofloxacin (500 mg) twice a day orally for 7 days starting on the day before the biopsy. The patients were divided into two groups according to the bowel preparation method used. Patients (Group 1, n = 164) only received self-administrated phosphate enema) on the morning of the prostate biopsy. Other patients (Group 2, n = 223) received sennasoid a-b laxatives the night before the prostate biopsy. Infectious complications were classified as sepsis, fever (greater than 38°C) without sepsis, and other clinical infections. RESULTS: Major complications developed in 14 cases (3.8%), including 3 cases (0.8%) of urinary retention, and 11 (3%) infectious complications, all of which were sepsis. There were 3 and 8 cases of urosepsis in Group 1 and Group 2, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences between both Groups regarding to the rates of urosepsis (p = 0.358). CONCLUSIONS: Despite both methods of bowel preparation, sodium phosphate enema or sennasoid a-b calcium laxatives, before TRUS-guided prostate biopsy have similar effect on the rate of urosepsis, so both methods of bowel preparation can be safely used.
INTRODUCTION: Transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) guided prostate needle biopsy has been performed to diagnose and stage prostate cancer for many years. There are many different bowel preparation protocols to diminish the infectious complications, but there is no standardized consensus among urologists. Therefore, we aimed to assess two different bowel preparation methods on the rate of infectious complications in patients who underwent TRUS-guided prostate biopsy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 387 cases of TRUS-guided prostate biopsy were included in this retrospective study. All patients received antibiotic prophylaxis with ciprofloxacin (500 mg) twice a day orally for 7 days starting on the day before the biopsy. The patients were divided into two groups according to the bowel preparation method used. Patients (Group 1, n = 164) only received self-administrated phosphate enema) on the morning of the prostate biopsy. Other patients (Group 2, n = 223) received sennasoid a-b laxatives the night before the prostate biopsy. Infectious complications were classified as sepsis, fever (greater than 38°C) without sepsis, and other clinical infections. RESULTS: Major complications developed in 14 cases (3.8%), including 3 cases (0.8%) of urinary retention, and 11 (3%) infectious complications, all of which were sepsis. There were 3 and 8 cases of urosepsis in Group 1 and Group 2, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences between both Groups regarding to the rates of urosepsis (p = 0.358). CONCLUSIONS: Despite both methods of bowel preparation, sodium phosphate enema or sennasoid a-b calcium laxatives, before TRUS-guided prostate biopsy have similar effect on the rate of urosepsis, so both methods of bowel preparation can be safely used.
Entities:
Keywords:
bowel preparation; prostate biopsy; prostate cancer
Authors: Osama M Zaytoun; Thomas Anil; Ayman S Moussa; Li Jianbo; Khaled Fareed; J Stephen Jones Journal: Urology Date: 2011-02-12 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Michael A Liss; Alexandra Chang; Rosanne Santos; Amy Nakama-Peeples; Ellena M Peterson; Kathryn Osann; John Billimek; Richard J Szabo; Atreya Dash Journal: J Urol Date: 2011-02-22 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Andreas P Berger; Christian Gozzi; Hannes Steiner; Ferdinand Frauscher; John Varkarakis; Hermann Rogatsch; Georg Bartsch; Wolfgang Horninger Journal: J Urol Date: 2004-04 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: D A Kapoor; I W Klimberg; G H Malek; J D Wegenke; C E Cox; A L Patterson; E Graham; R M Echols; E Whalen; S F Kowalsky Journal: Urology Date: 1998-10 Impact factor: 2.649